A RETURN TO SANITY

UNITED STATES LEADERSHIPFOR A NUCLEAR

WEAPONS-FREE WORLD

A Briefing for the New President

By David Krieger

WWW.WAGINGPEACE.ORG

2

“There is nothing more urgent confronting the people of all nationsthan the banning of all nuclearweapons under a foolproof system of international control.”

—President Harry S. Truman

“In an all-out nuclear war, moredestructive power than in all ofWorld War II would be unleashedevery second during the long after-noon it would take for all the missilesand bombs to fall....The survivors,if any, would live in despair amid thepoisoned ruins of a civilization thathad committed suicide.”

—President Jimmy Carter

“Total war makes no sense...in an agewhen the deadly poisons produced bya nuclear exchange would be carriedby the wind and water and soil andseed to the far corners of the globeand to generations unborn.”

—President John F. Kennedy

“We are in the era of the thermonuclear bomb that can obliterate cities and can be delivered across continents. Withsuch weapons, war has become,not just tragic, but preposterous.”

—President Dwight D. Eisenhower

“A nuclear war cannot be won andmust never be fought. The only valuein our two nations possessing nuclearweapons is to make sure they willnever be used. But then would it not bebetter to do away with them entirely?”

—President Ronald Reagan

Sara

hSa

un

ders

/T

he

Car

ter

Cen

ter

Har

ryS.

Tru

man

Libr

ary

and

Inst

itu

te

Cou

rtes

yJo

hn

F.K

enn

edy

Pre

side

nti

alLi

brar

yan

dM

use

um

,Bos

ton

Cou

rtes

yR

onal

dR

eaga

nLi

brar

y

Cou

rtes

yD

wig

ht

D.E

isen

how

erLi

brar

y,N

atio

nal

Arc

hiv

es

3

The most important thing to understand aboutnuclear weapons is this: these weapons do notand cannot provide physical protection to theirpossessors. Please let this thought sink in.

The second most important thing to understand aboutthese weapons is that they are weapons of genocide writlarge or, as the philosopher John Somerville has labeledthem, weapons of omnicide, capable of the destruction ofall.1 These weapons put at risk the future ofhumankind and most life on earth. Pleasealso let this thought sink in.

The third most important thing tounderstand about nuclear weapons is thatthey are in the hands of human beings withall their frailties and fallibilities, and, as such,these weapons are disasters waiting to occur.Please let this thought sink in as well.

How the new U.S. president understandsthe functions, limits and dangers of nuclearweapons will guide his approach to U.S.nuclear policy, and this policy, in turn, will be a key factor in determining the future security of our countryand the world. Nuclear weapons are the only weaponthat could destroy the United States and end human civilization.

An arsenal of thousands of nuclear weapons cannot protect the United States from a terrorist nuclear attack.The best defense against a nuclear attack is neither deter-rence nor missile defenses. It is a world free of nuclearweapons, achieved by negotiations for the phased,verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination ofthese weapons.

The greater the reliance of the U.S. and its allies onnuclear weapons, the greater the danger that theseweapons will proliferate and fall into the hands ofterrorist groups that cannot be deterred from usingthem. A declarative policy aimed at achieving a worldfree of nuclear weapons backed up by actions demon-strating U.S. leadership toward this goal is strongly in theinterests of the U.S. and the world. This should be one ofthe uppermost policy concerns of the new president.

There is much to be done to repair thedangerous directions in U.S. nuclearpolicy pursued by past administrationsand intensified under the administra-tion of George W. Bush.

General Omar Bradley, a leading U.S.general in World War II, observed, “Theworld has achieved brilliance withoutwisdom, power without conscience.Ours is a world of nuclear giants andethical infants. We know more aboutwar than we know about peace, moreabout killing than we know about liv-

ing.”2 General Bradley recognized clearly the gapbetween power and conscience. In a world in whichnuclear weapons have the power to destroy civilizationand even humankind, we are challenged to close thisdangerous gap. To achieve this goal will require leader-ship from the president of the United States.

TEN KEY CONSIDERATIONS

Here are ten key considerations in seeking to under-stand the nuclear dilemma that confronts humanity andthreatens our common future:

A RETURN TO SANITY

UNITED STATES LEADERSHIP FOR A NUCLEAR WEAPONS-FREE WORLD

A Briefing for the New President

By David Krieger

Nuclear weapons do not and

cannot providephysical

protection totheir possessors.

4

1. Nuclear weapons, even large nuclear arsenals, cannotprovide physical protection against other nuclearweapons. The threat of retaliation is not protection.

2. Deterrence is not defense against a nuclear attack. If itwere, missile defenses would not be needed. Missiledefenses, however, are also not a reliable defense to anuclear attack. They have the further disadvantage ofstimulating offensive nuclear arms races, which is thereason the U.S. and the former Soviet Union enteredinto the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

3. Continued reliance by nuclear weapons states on theseweapons will likely lead to further nuclear prolifera-tion, increasing the possibilities of nuclear weaponsfalling into the hands of terrorist groups.

4. Of all the states in the world, the U.S.has the most to gain from achieving aworld free of nuclear weapons.

5. U.S. security will be enhanced by reducing the size of all nuclear arsenals,including its own, and gaining strictand effective international control ofall nuclear weapons and the fissile materials that could be used for makingnuclear weapons.

6. U.S. leadership is the single mostimportant factor in making progress onthe path to nuclear weapons abolition.

7. By leading the world toward nuclear weapons aboli-tion, the United States would be acting legally, morallyand pragmatically, and would raise its status amongthe world’s nations.

8. For the United States to make significant progress inmoving toward a world free of nuclear weapons,presidential leadership will be critical, particularly inending or severely limiting weapons programs such asmissile defenses and space weaponization that areobstacles to progress on nuclear disarmament.

9. The time is right for U.S. leadership on nuclear disarmament, but if the U.S. fails to lead, as it has forthe past two administrations, the opportunity may belost forever.

10. With the assumption of office of the new presidentin 2009, there will be an opportunity to assert boldand decisive leadership on this issue.

NUCLEAR TERRORISM

For more than six decades, the leaders of nuclearweapons states have been playing Russian roulette withnuclear arms, holding these weapons to the heads oftheir own people as well as their enemies and to thehead of humanity as a whole. Such behavior may berightly viewed as state-sponsored terrorism. In additionto its illegality and immorality, continued reliance onnuclear weapons by the nuclear weapons states opensthe door for these weapons to fall into the possession ofnon-state terrorist organizations.

Despite the end of the Cold War, the dangers posed by nuclear weapons have not diminished. Some expertsbelieve that the dangers have actually increased. Theconcern is that eventually the weapons will be used by

design, miscalculation or accident.

It should be clear that it will not bepossible to deter terrorist organizationsfrom using nuclear weapons, shouldthese weapons come into their posses-sion. A necessary although not sufficientcondition for deterrence to be effective isthat the deterring party be able to locatethe target of deterrence. With terrorists,this is not likely. Further, terrorists areoften suicidal and therefore not con-cerned with the threat of retaliation.

The more nuclear weapons in the world and the morethey spread to new countries, the more likely it is thatthe weapons or the materials to create them will beobtained by terrorist organizations. Thus, it is stronglyin the interests of powerful states, especially the UnitedStates, to lead the way to a nuclear weapons-free future.

THE ONLY WAY TO WIN: NEGOTIATE AWORLD FREE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

General Bradley observed, “The way to win an atomicwar is to make certain it never starts.”3 There is only oneway to be certain that a nuclear war never starts, andthat is to abolish nuclear weapons under strict and effec-tive international control. Steps short of this goal willcontinue to leave open the door to nuclear catastrophe.

The only way the abolition of nuclear weapons can beachieved is with concerted leadership by the UnitedStates. The U.S. has the world’s most powerful militaryforce. If it doesn’t lead, the other nuclear weapons states,starting with Russia, will not follow this path. This doesnot mean that the U.S. must unilaterally disarm. It

U.S. security will be enhanced by lowering the

size of all nuclear arsenals,including its own.

5

means that it must demonstrate by its policies that it isserious about ending its reliance on nuclear weaponsand use its leadership and convening power to bring theother nuclear weapons states to the negotiating table.

PROBLEMS WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS

The leaders of the nuclear weapons states have concep-tualized using nuclear weapons in three principal ways:to deter by threatening retaliation for a prohibitedbehavior; to coerce, forcing another state to bend toone’s will; and to hold in reserve an arsenal of ultimateweapons to defeat an enemy in warfare. All of these usesare provocative, support double standards, encourageproliferation, and are more likely to fail than to succeedunder real world conditions.

Deterrence

The threat of retaliation to prevent anundesired act is generally referred to asdeterrence. When the threat is based onnuclear retaliation, it is referred to asnuclear deterrence. History has demon-strated on numerous occasions in thepost-World War II period that nuclearweapons are not an effective deterrent toconventional attacks, nor has the posses-sion and implied threat of nuclearweapons use led to victories in warsagainst non-nuclear weapon states.

The greatest shortcomings to deterrenceare that it requires three highly improbable conditions:first, clear and effective communications concerningintentions; second, that the will to carry out the inten-tions be believed by one’s enemy; and third, decision-makers who act rationally under all circumstances,including those of extreme stress. As we know, there arenumerous barriers, psychological and technical, to clearand effective communications. It is only natural to doubtthat leaders of any country would carry out an act sohorrendously immoral as causing the deaths of countlessmillions of innocent people. Finally, rationality is not tobe counted on in all decision-makers at all times, espe-cially in times of crisis.

Further, deterrence is not possible when the attackerscannot be located, as is the case with most terroristorganizations. If a terrorist group succeeded in obtainingand using a nuclear weapon against an American city ora city of one of our allies, against whom would we retali-ate? The threat of retaliation is not effective when anopponent cannot be located or is suicidal.

In short, deterrence cannot be relied upon for protection.Arguably, the fact that there was not a nuclear exchangeduring the Cold War was as much if not more attributa-ble to good luck as it was to deterrence. We came close toa nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union on more thanone occasion, including the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisisand the 1995 incident in which the Russian military mis-took a joint U.S.-Norwegian satellite launch for an attackon Russia. In both instances, and others, the world hasbeen at the brink of nuclear disaster.

A strong argument against nuclear deterrence wasmade in the January 2007 Wall Street Journal article,“A World Free of Nuclear Weapons,” by George Shultz,William Perry, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn. Theseformer leading U.S. policymakers stated, “The end of theCold War made the doctrine of mutual Soviet-American

deterrence obsolete. Deterrence contin-ues to be a relevant consideration formany states with regard to threats fromother states. But reliance on nuclearweapons for this purpose is becomingincreasingly hazardous and decreasinglyeffective.”4

Based upon this analysis, Shultz andhis colleagues concluded: “Reassertion ofthe vision of a world free of nuclearweapons and practical measures towardachieving that goal would be, and wouldbe perceived as, a bold initiative consis-tent with America’s moral heritage. Theeffort could have a profoundly positive

impact on the security of future generations. Withoutthe bold vision, the actions will not be perceived as fairor urgent. Without the actions, the vision will not beperceived as realistic or possible.”5

A year later, the four former high-level U.S. policy-makers co-authored another article in the Wall StreetJournal, “Toward a Nuclear-Free World.” In this article,they expressed concern that we had reached “a nucleartipping point.” They wrote, “We face a very real possibili-ty that the deadliest weapons ever invented could fallinto dangerous hands.”6 They reiterated their loss of con-fidence in deterrence, “The steps we are taking now toaddress these threats are not adequate to the danger.With nuclear weapons more widely available, deterrenceis decreasingly effective and increasingly hazardous.”7

In June 2008, three former foreign secretaries of theUK and one former secretary general of NATO joinedtogether to support the former U.S. policymakers intheir call for a world free of nuclear weapons. They

“But reliance onnuclear weaponsfor this purpose[deterrence] is

becoming increasinglyhazardous and

decreasingly effective.”– Shultz, Perry,

Kissinger & Nunn

6

argued, “the more nuclear material in circulation, thegreater the risk that it falls into the wrong hands. Andwhile governments, no matter how distasteful, are usual-ly capable of being deterred, groups such as al-Qaeda,are not. Cold War calculations have been replaced byasymmetrical warfare and suicide missions.”8

Coercion

The use of nuclear weapons to coerce another nation,forcing it to bend to one’s will, is a dangerous game. Itsends a message that a country is willing to use nuclearweapons in warfare, and this is provocative behavior.It encourages nuclear proliferation as a remedy to such threat.

To the extent that the U.S. relies uponnuclear weapons as weapons of war, we aresending the wrong message to the world.Other states will conclude that if theworld’s most militarily powerful countryneeds nuclear weapons for coercion orwar-fighting, they should do so as well.Thus, our reliance upon nuclear weaponsis an invitation to nuclear proliferation.Currently, our stated policy of willingnessto use nuclear weapons sends the messageto other states that we find these weaponsuseful in our war planning. Most of theworld’s states already reject a permanenttwo-tiered hierarchy of nuclear “haves”and “have-nots.” We are reinforcing theirfear of our sustaining this dangerous double standard byour reliance upon these weapons for coercion.

Defeating an Enemy

Another use we make of nuclear weapons is theimplicit or explicit threat of use in a situation in whichour military fighting halfway across the world is in needof immediate backup. Again, this reliance on nuclearweapons is an inducement to proliferation.

Any use of nuclear weapons in war would break thetaboo against their use that has existed since the bomb-ings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. No matter what theprovocation, it is likely that the country breaking thistaboo and using nuclear weapons would be viewed as anoutlaw nation and would be ostracized by other nations.This would be particularly true of the United States asthe only country to have already used nuclear weaponsin warfare.

MISSILE DEFENSES AND SPACE WEAPONIZATION

If deterrence is not reliable to protect against a nuclearattack, is it likely that missile defenses can make a coun-try invulnerable to a nuclear attack? Most experts, otherthan those being paid by firms profiting from missiledefense contracts, have argued that missile defenses canbe easily overcome by sophisticated nuclear attacksemploying decoys or maneuverable missiles.9 Many missile defense tests classified as “successful” have usedhoming devices to allow the defensive missile to locateand shoot down the attacking missile. Of course, missiledefenses have no ability to protect against a “suitcasebomb” or other nuclear device not delivered by a missile.

Missile defenses undermine deterrencetheory if viewed from the perspective ofpotential enemy nations. From their vantage point, these “defenses” appear to be offensive in that they allow for a“defense” against the relatively smallnumber of missiles remaining after a successful first-strike attack. Althoughmost Americans may believe that the U.S.would never use nuclear weapons first,this is not current U.S. policy, nor is it theperspective of security experts in othercountries who must base their analyseson worst-case scenarios.

Missile defense plans include the possibility of weaponizing space, which would correctlybe viewed as having both defensive and offensive capa-bilities. Russia and China have taken clear positions onpreventing the weaponization of space, and have put forward proposals for a treaty banning space weaponiza-tion.10 The U.S. has rejected these attempts and sought tohold open the possibility of weaponizing space. In the2007 United Nations General Assembly, the U.S. was theonly country in the world to vote against a resolutioncalling for banning weapons from space.11

If the United States seeks to create a world free of nuclearweapons, it will have to significantly alter current U.S.policies regarding missile defenses and space weaponiza-tion. To make progress on nuclear disarmament willrequire that agreements be reached ending or severelyrestricting missile defense programs and ending spaceweaponization programs.

Although mostAmericans maybelieve that the

U.S. would never use nuclear

weapons first,this is not current

U.S. policy.

7

LEGAL ISSUES

The United States agreed in the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which entered into force in1970, to engage in “good faith” negotiations for nucleardisarmament. The essential bargain of the NPT was thatstates that did not possess nuclear weapons agreed not toacquire them, and states that did possess them agreed tothese “good faith” negotiations to eliminate them. TheNPT might more appropriately have been called the“Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Treaty,” becauseone of its major goals, at least from the perspective ofthe non-nuclear weapons states, was to level the playingfield with no nation possessing nuclear weapons.

At the 1995 NPT Review and ExtensionConference, the treaty was extended indef-initely, but with promises by the nuclearweapons states to do more to fulfill theirobligations for nuclear disarmament.12

A year later, on July 8, 1996, theInternational Court of Justice issued anAdvisory Opinion on the Legality of theThreat or Use of Nuclear Weapons. TheCourt found in a split decision that thethreat or use of nuclear weapons was gen-erally illegal and found unanimously that“[t]here exists an obligation to pursue ingood faith and bring to a conclusion nego-tiations leading to nuclear disarmament inall its aspects under strict and effectiveinternational control.”13

Also during 1996, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treatywas opened for signatures. While the United States wasthe first country to sign the treaty, ratification by the U.S.Senate was defeated in 1999 and the treaty was neverresubmitted to the Senate by the Bush administration.14

In 2000, at the NPT Review Conference, the countriesof the world agreed to 13 Practical Steps for NuclearDisarmament. These included:

• achieving the early entry into force ofthe Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty;

• negotiating a verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons;

• applying the principle of irreversibility to nuclear disarmament;

• preserving and strengthening the Anti-BallisticMissile Treaty;

• early entry into force of the Strategic ArmsReduction Treaty, START II, and the conclusionof START III;

• further development of verification capabilitiesfor the achievement and maintenance of anuclear weapons-free world; and

• “[a]n unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon States to accomplish the total eliminationof their nuclear arsenals….”15

This agreement was widely viewed in the internationalcommunity as an important step forward.Unfortunately, the U.S. has been a major obstacle to

virtually all of the 13 Practical Steps.

A significant setback in nuclear disarmament efforts occurred when theU.S. withdrew in 2002 from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in order to pursue missile defenses and spaceweaponization. U.S. efforts in these areas have led Russia and China to takeoffensive steps to offset U.S. defenses(in order to be satisfied that they arenot vulnerable to a U.S. first-strikeattack). Russia has expressed particular dissatisfaction with expanding NATOmembership up to its borders; withU.S. plans to place missile defenseinstallations in Poland and the CzechRepublic; and, most recently, with

Poland’s agreement, following the Russian-Georgianoutbreak of violence, to accept U.S. interceptor missilesin its country.

Most important, the U.S. has failed to provide leader-ship on the promise in the 13 Practical Steps of an“unequivocal undertaking” for the elimination ofnuclear arsenals. Five years later, the 2005 NPT ReviewConference began with two wasted weeks of arguingover the agenda and ended without agreement and infailure.

MORAL ISSUES

In addition to legal concerns, the moral issues con-nected with the threat or use of nuclear weapons havebeen addressed by nearly every major religious body andinterfaith organization. There is near unanimous agree-ment that any use of nuclear weapons would be deeplyimmoral due to the unsurpassed death and destructionthat would result. The harm caused by nuclear weapons

A significant setback in nuclear

disarmament effortsoccurred when the

U.S. withdrew in 2002from the 1972

Anti-Ballistic MissileTreaty in order to

pursue missile defenses and space

weaponization.

8

is not only in the present, but carries on into the futuredue to the effects of radiation on the human body,including mutations in succeeding generations.

The International Court of Justice Advisory Opinionon the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weaponsnoted, “The destructive power of nuclear weapons cannot be contained in either space or time. They havethe potential to destroy all civilization and the entireecosystem of the planet.”16 The Court found that nuclearweapons had “unique characteristics,” including “theirability to cause damage to generations to come.”17

As the country that initially created nuclear weapons,used them in warfare and conducted more tests of theseweapons than any other country, in the eyes of most ofthe world the U.S. has the primary moral responsibilityto end the nuclear weapons threat to humanity.

PRAGMATIC ISSUES

The 2006 Report of the Weapons ofMass Destruction Commission, chaired bySwedish diplomat Hans Blix, Weapons ofTerror, Freeing the World of Nuclear,Biological and Chemical Arms, summa-rized its concern with nuclear dangers inthis way: “So long as any state has nuclearweapons, others will want them. So longas any such weapons remain, there is arisk that they will one day be used, bydesign or accident. And any such usewould be catastrophic.”18 In other words,so long as nuclear weapons exist, no onecan guarantee that they will not be usedand, without doubt, such use would becatastrophic. The thousands of nuclearweapons in the U.S. arsenal provide no assurance thatthe U.S. will not become the victim of a nuclear attack.

Nuclear weapons are the only weapon capable ofdestroying the United States, and continue to place at riskthe future of the country. While the odds of a successfulnuclear attack against the United States may seemremote to most people, experts say the odds today are,in fact, far from insignificant. Nuclear expert RichardGarwin testified to Congress that he places the odds of aterrorist attack against the United States at 20 percentper year.19 Graham Allison of Harvard’s Belfer Center forScience and International Affairs, an expert in nuclearterrorism, places the odds of a nuclear detonation by ter-rorists at greater than 50 percent over a ten year period.20

There is only one country that can lead the way to anuclear weapons-free future and that is the United States.If the U.S. does not provide leadership, it is unlikely thatRussia will feel confident in taking its arsenal to lowerlevels and the other nuclear weapons states will resistlowering their arsenals as well. If the U.S. does provideleadership to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons, itwill help restore its leadership and respect in the world.The U.S. must begin by examining what it can do unilat-erally to reduce risks of nuclear warfare and bilaterallywith Russia to verifiably lower the size and threat oftheir arsenals and delivery systems. It must follow this by using its convening power to bring together theremainder of the nuclear weapons states to negotiate aNuclear Weapons Convention for the phased, verifiable,irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclearweapons in a series of confidence building steps that can be agreed to by all nations.

DOUBLE STANDARDS

Double standards are a reflection ofimbalance. They create two-tier struc-tures that are not viable in the long-term.This is true of the current world structureof nuclear “haves” and “have-nots.” Thenuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was setup recognizing this two-tier structure asit existed in 1968. The equalizing mecha-nism in the NPT is found in Article VI ofthe treaty, which states, “Each of the par-ties to the Treaty undertakes to pursuenegotiations in good faith on effectivemeasures relating to cessation of thenuclear arms race at an early date and tonuclear disarmament, and on a treaty ongeneral and complete disarmament under

strict and effective international control.”21 U.S. policyshould be geared toward ending double standards, whichare invariably destabilizing. This would mean that U.S.policy should seek to fulfill Article VI obligations, but itwould also mean applying the criteria of universal stan-dards to other nuclear policies as they arise.

Applied to some current key issues, this would require,for example, that the U.S. not provide technical nuclearassistance to countries that are not parties to the NPT.There should be no special exceptions to this rule, suchas those in the U.S.-India Nuclear Deal. This would alsorequire that the U.S. not pursue the Global NuclearEnergy Partnership, with its proposed provisions forallowing some countries to reprocess plutonium, whichcan be used for producing nuclear weapons. This would

“The destructive power of nuclear

weapons cannot becontained in eitherspace or time. Theyhave the potential

to destroy all civilization and the

entire ecosystem of the planet.”

– International Court of Justice

9

create yet another level of double standards. Opposingdouble standards would also require either banning altogether the enrichment of uranium or establishinginternational inspection procedures that apply universally to all states.

There are no valid grounds for applying one set ofstandards to ourselves and our friends and allies andanother set of standards to our perceived enemies. Thiswill result in greater dissatisfaction with the systemicimbalance, and will lead to clandestine programs to levelthe playing field by means of nuclear proliferation.

THE VISION OF POST-WORLD WAR II PRESIDENTS

Many U.S. presidents have spoken out on nuclear dan-gers, although often not until late in their presidencies.None succeeded in reaching the necessaryaccords to achieve a nuclear weapons-freeworld, although some took importantsteps to reduce nuclear dangers. It may be useful to review some of the moreimportant statements on nuclear disar-mament by post-World War II presidents.

Harry Truman, although he usednuclear weapons twice in the final days ofWorld War II, concluded, “There is noth-ing more urgent confronting the peopleof all nations than the banning of allnuclear weapons under a foolproofsystem of international control.”22

Dwight David Eisenhower stated at the1956 Republican National Convention, “We are in theera of the thermonuclear bomb that can obliterate cities and can be delivered across continents. With such weapons, war has become, not just tragic, but preposterous.”23

John F. Kennedy spoke out in a speech at AmericanUniversity on June 10, 1963, having the previous fallgone through the Cuban Missile Crisis. Kennedy saidwith great passion,

I speak of peace because of the new face of war.Total war makes no sense in an age where great pow-ers can maintain large and relatively invulnerablenuclear forces and refuse to surrender without resortto those forces. It makes no sense in an age where asingle nuclear weapon contains almost ten times theexplosive force delivered by all the allied air forces inthe Second World War. It makes no sense in an age

when the deadly poisons produced by a nuclearexchange would be carried by wind and water andsoil and seed to the far corners of the globe and togenerations yet unborn.

Today the expenditure of billions of dollars everyyear on weapons acquired for the purpose of makingsure we never need them is essential to the keepingof peace. But surely the acquisition of such idlestockpiles – which can only destroy and never create– is not the only, much less the most efficient, meansof assuring peace. I speak of peace, therefore, as thenecessary, rational end of rational men. I realize thepursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit ofwar, and frequently the words of the pursuers fall ondeaf ears. But we have no more urgent task.24

Jimmy Carter, in his Farewell Address, warned, “In anall-out nuclear war, more destructivepower than in all of World War II wouldbe unleashed every second during thelong afternoon it would take for all themissiles and bombs to fall. A World WarII every second – more people killed inthe first few hours than all the wars ofhistory put together. The survivors, ifany, would live in despair amid the poi-soned ruins of a civilization that hadcommitted suicide.”25

Ronald Reagan was perhaps the U.S.president who became most passionatelycommitted to abolishing nuclearweapons, and he came close to doing sowhen he met with Soviet leader Mikhail

Gorbachev in 1986 at a summit in Reykjavik, Iceland. Ifit were not for the two leaders’ inability to agree on limi-tations to Reagan’s missile defense plans, the goal of anuclear weapons-free world might already have beenachieved. Reagan said, “A nuclear war cannot be won,and must never be fought. The only value in our twonations possessing nuclear weapons is to make sure theywill never be used. But then would it not be better to doaway with them entirely?”26

ACHIEVING A WORLD FREE OFNUCLEAR WEAPONS

There are a variety of ways in which the goal of a worldfree of nuclear weapons can be attained. All begin with avision of a world free of nuclear weapons, followed by aseries of steps to achieve this vision. Some of the steps maybe unilateral, others bilateral between the U.S. and Russia(since they have between them more than 95 percent of

“There is nothing more urgent

confronting the peopleof all nations than thebanning of all nuclear

weapons under afoolproof system of

international control.”– President

Harry Truman

10

the nuclear weapons on the planet), and still others multilateral involving the nine states possessing nuclearweapons and ultimately the entire international commu-nity. To reach the final goal will require a new interna-tional treaty that provides a roadmap for achieving thetotal elimination of nuclear weapons. Similar treatieshave already been negotiated for chemical and biologicalweapons, the Chemical Weapons Convention andBiological Weapons Convention.

The governments of Costa Rica and Malaysia haveintroduced into the United Nations a Model NuclearWeapons Convention, prepared by leading civil societyorganizations.27 The draft treaty demonstrates that aNuclear Weapons Convention is feasible and provides amodel of such a treaty. The 13 Practical Steps agreed toat the 2000 NPT Review Conference, with their emphasison verification, irreversibility and“unequivocal commitment,” also provideimportant guidelines for proceeding downthe road to nuclear weapons abolition.28

The 2006 Report of the Commission onWeapons of Mass Destruction put forwarda series of 30 proposals for reducing therisks of nuclear weapons.29 Among theserecommendations are the following: a categorical policy of all nuclear weaponsstates of No First Use of these weapons,covering both preemptive and preventiveactions, as well as retaliation for chemical,biological or conventional weaponsattacks; a review of military plans to determine what is necessary to maintaincredible non-nuclear security policies;and planning for security without nuclearweapons.

The group of former senior U.S. policymakers, led byGeorge Shultz, has set forth a series of actions in pursuitof the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons. Theyhave suggested that among the near-term steps thatcould be taken by the U.S. and Russia are the following:

• extend the key provisions of the Strategic ArmsReduction Treaty of 1991 (START I);

• increase the warning and decision times for thelaunch of all nuclear-armed ballistic missiles;

• discard any existing operational plans for massiveattacks still remaining from Cold War days;

• negotiate cooperative multilateral ballistic mis-sile defense and early warning systems; and

• act to prevent terrorists from obtaining nuclearweapons or the materials to make them.30

Their proposals, with the exception of the continuedpursuit of missile defenses, which is unnecessarilyprovocative and unlikely to be effective, deserve seriousconsideration in developing a strategy for the globalelimination of nuclear weapons.

A report authored by analysts from several major scientific organizations, Toward True Security, puts forward ten steps that the new president should take totransform U.S. nuclear weapons policy.31 The steps canall be taken unilaterally, and begin with a declaration by

the president “that the sole purpose ofU.S. nuclear weapons is to deter and, ifnecessary, respond to the use of nuclearweapons by another country.” Thiswould, in effect, create a policy of NoFirst Use. The authors argue, “Making itclear that the United States will not usenuclear weapons first would reduce theincentive for other nations to acquirethese weapons to deter a potential U.S.first strike.”32

At the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation,we have our own set of steps for movingforward based upon reducing risks,downgrading reliance on nuclearweapons, and gaining global control overnuclear weapons and materials. They culminate in a Nuclear WeaponsConvention and the reallocation of

resources to peaceful purposes. These steps, which rangefrom unilateral to multilateral, are:

• De-alert. Remove all nuclear weapons from high-alert status, separating warheads from delivery vehicles;

• No First Use. Make legally binding commitmentsto No First Use of nuclear weapons and establishnuclear policies consistent with this commitment;

• No New Nuclear Weapons. Initiate a moratoriumon the research and development of new nuclearweapons, such as the Reliable ReplacementWarhead;

“Making it clear thatthe United States

will not use nuclearweapons first wouldreduce the incentive

for other nations to acquire these

weapons to deter a potential U.S.

first strike.”– Toward True

Security

11

• Ban Nuclear Testing Forever. Ratify and bring intoforce the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty;

• Control Nuclear Material. Create a verifiableFissile Material Cut-off Treaty with provisions tobring all weapons-grade nuclear material and thetechnologies to create such material under strictand effective international control;

• Nuclear Weapons Convention. Commence goodfaith negotiations, as required by the Non-Proliferation Treaty, to achieve a Nuclear WeaponsConvention for the phased, verifiable and irreversible elimination of nuclear weapons;

• Resources for Peace. Reallocateresources from the tens of billionscurrently spent on nuclear arms toalleviating poverty, preventing andcuring disease, eliminating hungerand expanding educational opportu-nities throughout the world.33

MOVING FORWARD

In moving forward, it will be critical toexert U.S. leadership for a nuclearweapons-free world in five areas:

First, educate the American people aboutthe true dangers that nuclear weaponspose to them and the increased security that will be aconsequence of reducing and eliminating nuclear arse-nals. No one is better positioned to effectively do thisthan the president of the United States.

Second, take unilateral policy steps, such as a declara-tion of No First Use of nuclear weapons, to show theworld that the U.S. is serious about reducing its ownreliance on nuclear arms. By taking away the option ofusing nuclear weapons preemptively or preventively, the

U.S. will be demonstrating the requisite political will andsetting a tone far more conducive to bilateral and multi-lateral negotiations for nuclear disarmament.

Third, work closely with the Russians in achievingmajor reductions in the nuclear arsenals of the twocountries, in reducing the risks of accidental nuclear war,and in establishing protocols for controlling nuclearmaterials globally.

Fourth, focus on achieving universal and global standards and avoiding double standards in U.S. nuclearpolicies related to other states, ending the practice ofapplying one set of standards to ourselves and our

friends and allies and another set ofstandards to our perceived enemies.

Fifth, use the convening power ofthe U.S. to bring together the nuclearweapons states and then all of the world’snations to negotiate a roadmap to aworld free of nuclear weapons in theform of a Nuclear Weapons Convention.

Redirecting U.S. nuclear policy towardachieving a world free of nuclearweapons is not a matter of politics orpolitical gain; it is an issue of human survival. In the words of retired U.S. AirForce General George Lee Butler, formercommander in chief of the U.S. Strategic

Command, “By what authority do succeeding genera-tions of leaders in the nuclear weapons states usurp thepower to dictate the odds of continued life on our plan-et? Most urgently, why does such breathtaking audacitypersist at the moment when we should stand tremblingin the face of our folly and united in our commitment to abolish its most deadly manifestation?”34 Only thepresident of the United States can exert the necessaryleadership to end this folly.

Redirecting U.S.nuclear policy

toward achieving a world free of

nuclear weapons is not a matter of

politics or politicalgain; it is an issue

of human survival.

12

1 Somerville, John, “Nuclear ‘War’ is Omnicide,” Peace Research: ACanadian Journal of Peace Studies, April 1982.2 Bradley, Omar, “Quotation 8126,” The Columbia World of Quotations.New York: Columbia University Press, 1996., seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Bradley.3 Bradley, Omar, Speech to the Boston Chamber of Commerce, 1948, seehttp://www.quotationspage.com/quote/24898.html.4 Shultz, George P., et al., “A World Free of Nuclear Weapons,” WallStreet Journal, January 4, 2007.5 Ibid.6 Shultz, George P., et al., “Toward a Nuclear-Free World,” Wall StreetJournal, January 15, 2008.7 Ibid.8 Hurd, Douglas, Malcolm Rifkind, David Own and George Robertson,“Start Worrying and Learn to Ditch the Bomb,” Times (of London),June 30, 2008.9 See, for example, Postol, Theodore, “Why Missile Defense Won’tWork,” on the Web site of PBS at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front-line/shows/missile/etc/postol.html.10 Cumming-Bruce, Nick, “U.N. Weighs a Ban on Weapons in Space, butU.S. Still Objects,” New York Times, February 13, 2008, on the Web siteof the New York Times athttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/world/europe/13arms.html.11 See Krieger, David, “UN Voting on Nuclear Disarmament ShowsAbysmal US Record,” on the Web site of the Nuclear Age PeaceFoundation at http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2008/02/13_krieger_abysmal_record.php?krieger.12 See “Decision 2: Principles and Objectives for Non-Proliferation andDisarmament,” 1995 Review and Extension Conference of the Parties tothe Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, 17 April to 12May 1995, NPT/Conf. 1995/32 (Part I), Annex, on the Web site of theUnited Nations at http://disarmament.un.org/wmd/npt/1995dec2.htm.13 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legalityof the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, United Nations GeneralAssembly, A/51/218, 15 October 1996, p. 37.14 See Krieger, David, “Senate Vote Leaves the World a More DangerousPlace,” on the Web site of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation at http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/1999/00/00_krieger_senate-vote.htm.15 Final Document Issued by 2000 NPT Review Conference, 20 May2000, on the Web site of the Federation of American Scientists athttp://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/docs/finaldoc.htm.16 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legalityof the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, United Nations GeneralAssembly, A/51/218, 15 October 1996, p. 17.17 Ibid.18 Weapons of Terror, Freeing the World of Nuclear, Biological andChemical Arms, Stockholm: Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission,2006, p. 17.19 See the Web site of ArmsControlWonk.com, April 11, 2007, athttp://www.armscontrolwonk.com/1459/dick-matt-on-the-pterror-farm. Also see Allison, Graham, “Graham Allison Commentary:Nuclear Attack: A Worst Case Reality?” The Washington Times, April 23,2008, on the Web site of Harvard Kennedy School athttp://www.hks.harvard.edu/news-events/news/op-eds/nuclear-attack.

20 See “There is a Greater than 50% Chance of a Nuclear Attack byTerrorists Within Ten Years, According to an Expert,” April 21, 2007, onthe Web site of Associated Content athttp://www.associatedcontent.com/article/221712/there_is_a_greater_than_50_chance_of.html?cat=62.21 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, signed atWashington, London and Moscow on July 1, 1968, Web site of theFederation of American Scientists:http://www.un.org/events/npt2005/npttreaty.html.22 See “U.S. Presidential Perspectives, Past and Present,” on the Web siteof Foundation for Global Community at http://www.globalcommunity.org/timeline/75/index.shtml.23 Eisenhower, Dwight, Address at the Cow Palace on Accepting theNomination of the Republican National Convention, August 23, 1956,on the Web site of The American Presidency Project at http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=10583.24 Kennedy, John, “Commencement Address at American University,”June 10, 1963, on the Web site of the John F. Kennedy PresidentialLibrary and Museum athttp://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Speeches/JFK/003POF03AmericanUniversity06101963.htm.25 Carter, Jimmy, “President Jimmy Carter’s Farewell Address,” January14, 1981, on the Web site of the Jimmy Carter Presidential Library andMuseum athttp://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/speeches/farewell.phtml.26 Reagan, Ronald, “Address Before a Joint Session of Congress on theState of the Union,” January 25, 1984, on the Web site of The AmericanPresidency Project athttp://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=40205.27 “Nuclear Weapons Convention submitted to United Nations by CostaRica and Malaysia,” on the Web site of Mayors for Peace athttp://www.2020visioncampaign.org/pages/337/Nuclear_Weapons_Convention_submitted_to_United_Nations_by_Costa_Rica_and_Malaysia.28 Final Document Issued by 2000 NPT Review Conference, 20 May2000, on the Web site of the Federation of American Scientists athttp://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/docs/finaldoc.htm.29 Weapons of Terror, Freeing the World of Nuclear, Biological andChemical Arms, Stockholm: Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission,2006, pp. 60-109.30 Shultz, George P., et al., “Toward a Nuclear-Free World,” Wall StreetJournal, January 15, 2008.31 See “Toward True Security, Ten Steps the Next President Should Taketo Transform U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy,” February 2008, on the Website of the Union of Concerned Scientists at http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/truesecurity.html.32 Ibid.33 See “US Leadership for a Nuclear Weapons-Free World, An Appeal tothe Next President,” on the Web site of the Nuclear Age PeaceFoundation at http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/action/ urgent-actions/appeal_to_next_pres/.34 Butler, George Lee, “Ending the Nuclear Madness,” Nuclear Age PeaceFoundation, Waging Peace Series, Number 40, September 1999, p. 19.

ENDNOTES

David Krieger is a founder of the Nuclear Age PeaceFoundation and has served as President of theFoundation since 1982. He has been a leader in the global movement to abolish nuclear weapons. He haslectured throughout the United States, Europe and Asiaon issues of peace, security, international law, and theabolition of nuclear weapons. Among the many books he has written or edited are: Nuclear Weapons and theWorld Court, Einstein – Peace Now! and Joseph Rotblat –Visionary for Peace. He is a councilor on the WorldFuture Council, and serves on the Advisory Council ofmany peace-related organizations around the world.He is a graduate of Occidental College and was recently recognized as its Alumnus of the Year. He holds M.A.and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Hawaii, and a J.D. from the Santa Barbara College of Law. Beforefounding the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, he workedat the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutionsand the Foundation for Reshaping the InternationalOrder. He has received many awards for his work,including the Global Green Award for InternationalEnvironmental Leadership and the Gakudo Peace Award of the Ozaki Yukio Memorial Foundation.

DIRECTORSRichard Falk, Chair · Mark Hamilton, Vice Chair · David Krieger, J.D., Ph.D., President Frank K. Kelly, Senior Vice President · Robert Laney, J.D., Vice President · Lessie Nixon Schontzler, J.D., Secretary Peter R. MacDougall, Ed.D., Treasurer · Jill Dexter · Diandra de Morrell Douglas · Léni Fé Bland Anna Grotenhuis, J.D. · Laurie Harris, J.D. · Peter O. Haslund, Ph.D. · Sue Hawes, J.D. · Marc Kielburger, J.D. Steve Parry · John Randolph Parten, J.D. · Chris Pizzinat · Selma Rubin · Imaging Spence

ADVISORY COUNCIL Hafsat Abiola · Tadatoshi Akiba · Hon. Lloyd Axworthy, Ph.D., PC · Harry Belafonte · Blase Bonpane Helen Caldicott, M.D. · Hon. Rodrigo Carazo · Jean-Michel Cousteau · Walter Cronkite · Michael Douglas Anne H. Ehrlich, Ph.D. · Paul R. Ehrlich, Ph.D. · Daniel Ellsberg, Ph.D. · Benjamin B. Ferencz, J.D. · Harrison FordJohan Galtung, Dr. hc mult · Jane Goodall, Ph.D., DBE · Rev. Theodore M. Hesburgh, C.S.C. · Bianca Jagger Major General Jack Kidd (Ret.) · The XIVth Dalai Lama* · Admiral Gene R. La Rocque (Ret.) Robert Jay Lifton, M.D. · Bernard Lown, M.D. · Mairead Corrigan Maguire* · Hon. Robert MullerQueen Noor of Jordan · John Polanyi* · Admiral L. Ramdas (Ret.) · Hon. Arthur N.R. RobinsonHon. Douglas Roche, O.C. · Jonathan Schell · Stanley K. Sheinbaum · Gerry Spence, J.D. · Paul (Noel) StookeyTed Turner · Archbishop Desmond M. Tutu* · Peter Yarrow

ASSOCIATESRobert C. Aldridge · Richard Appelbaum, Ph.D. · Eric H. Boehm, Ph.D. · Selma BrackmanM. M. Eskandari-Qajar, Ph.D. · Dietrich Fischer, Ph.D. · Jonathan Granoff, J.D. · Gene Knudsen Hoffman Peter Kuznick, Ph.D. · Ved P. Nanda, L.L.M. · Farzeen Nasri, Ph.D. · Jan Øberg, Ph.D. · Melvin Oliver, Ph.D. Jennifer Allen Simons, Ph.D. · Michael Wallace, Ph.D. · Lawrence Wittner, Ph.D.

STAFFSteven Crandell · Nick Robinson · Sharon Rossol · Vicki Stevenson · Steve Stormoen · Rick Wayman

*Nobel Laureate

NUCLEAR AGE PEACE FOUNDATION

Ph

oto:

Ph

ilC

han

nin

g

PMB 121, 1187 Coast Village Road, Suite 1Santa Barbara, CA 93108-2794

Change Service Requested

Non-Profit OrganizationUS Postage

PAIDSanta Barbara, CAPermit No. 1215

The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation initiates

and supports worldwide efforts to abolish

nuclear weapons, to strengthen international

law and institutions, and to inspire and

empower a new generation of peace leaders.

Founded in 1982, the Foundation is

comprised of individuals and organizations

worldwide that recognize the imperative for

peace in the Nuclear Age.

The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is a

non-profit, non-partisan, international

education and advocacy organization.

It has consultative status to the United

Nations Economic and Social Council

and is recognized by the UN as a Peace

Messenger Organization.

VisionOur vision is a world at peace, free ofthe threat of war and free of weapons of mass destruction.

MissionTo advance initiatives to eliminate thenuclear weapons threat to all life, to foster the global rule of law, and to build an enduring legacy of peace through education and advocacy.

If you are inspired to work for peace in aworld free of nuclear weapons, please join us at www.wagingpeace.org. We can supportyou as you become a peace leader in yourown community. And, as always, please send us your comments and suggestions.

NUCLEAR AGE PEACE FOUNDATIONNUCLEAR AGE PEACE FOUNDATION

WWW.WAGINGPEACE.ORG